[Gen-art] Re: Genart LC review of draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt

[Lisa Dusseault]

On Aug 28, 2006, at 12:12 PM, Robert Sparks wrote: Issue 1: It's not clear why this is Experimental from the current document text (research, limited applicability,...?). Would an applicability statement make sense? Perhaps.  There are two reasons why I suggested Experimental: 1.  I'm not entirely convinced what the right choices for the scope of a license are.  There are usability and legality concerns. 2.  We (James and I) don't know of intended consumer applications of license information in feeds.  There are a couple tools that are or will soon be capable of putting license info in, but who will go looking for it?   (e.g. search engines that can filter out/in certain kinds of licenses) So if we (IETF) publish this as Experimental and it turns out to be useful, we'll see consumer applications and then we'll get more information on what are the most appropriate choices for the scope of the license metadata.   For other Experimental documents, I've seen general statements added along the lines of "It's not yet certain what use this will be put to, so implementations and feedback are encouraged"... but isn't that almost to be assumed for Experimental docs? -------- Issue 2: What's covered by the license claim is still hard to pull out of the document - the paragraphs added for version 07 help. The following paragraph starts to capture the intent (I think), but the document would benefit from making this a more immediate and central point:    Because entries contained within a feed may originate from other    sources, "license" link relations appearing within a feed apply to    the metadata of the containing feed element only and do not extend    over the metadata or content of the contained entries. I read this to say that the license covers only those bits inside the <feed> element that contains the license link, but no bits inside any <entry> elements that <feed> element might contain. This is the real requirement and should be stated normatively. The following paragraphs are justification for the requirement. The point would be better made if they didn't have the normative text they currently have. (Unless I've missed the point off the document). I think I agree with this. thanks for your comments, Lisa

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art